danube news - iad · danube news –november 2011 –no. 24 ... trilogy now, no. 24 is featuring...

Danube News – November 2011 – No. 24 - Volume 13

danube newsdonau aktuellBulletin of the International Association for Danube Research (IAD)

Informationsblatt der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Donauforschung (IAD)

Volume 10 - ISSN 2070-1292

ISSN 2070-1292

Editorial

Dear Reader

We all know that the Danube River, second largest riverin Europe, is something very special, given the 9 ripariancountries and the 19 countries sharing the basin with itsunique delta. The Danube is fed not only by its source in theBlack Forest, but also by numerous small and large tribu-taries. In Liepolt’s Danube monograph “Limnologie derDonau” (1967), Lászlóffy provides an impressive graph ofmean discharge of the Danube and its tributaries. In the Middle Danube, the Sava and Drava, both from the rightside, as well as the Tisza from the left side, are by far themost significant tributaries. With respective mean dischargesof 1800, 622 and 920m3/s, the three rivers contribute about40%, 28% and 27% to the main river, thus enlarging theDanube considerably. Within about 220km of Danubelength, these three tributaries alone double the size of themain river. Therefore, I think it is time to dedicate “DanubeNews” to the Sava, Drava and Tisza Rivers; starting the trilogy now, No. 24 is featuring the Sava.

When I was traveling for the first time, in 2000, fromNovi Sad to Sarajevo, I could visualize the nice old stonebridge over the Drina (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia) thatwas immortalized by the famous book of Nobel Prize winnerIvo Andric and now is an UNESCO world cultural heritage(Figure 1). The wild mountainous region was a fascinatingexperience with regard to inherent natural beauty of theriverine landscape, history and local people. Some hourssoutheast of Zagreb, the bizarre calcareous tufa formationsand the turquoise color of the karstic Plitvice Lakes (Croatia)offer another breathtaking highlight. The nature reserves inthe Sava River Basin provide still intact large floodplains andhigh biodiversity. The majesty of the Lower Sava River canbe felt when seeing a beautiful sunset from the “castle hill”of Belgrade. Could all this and much more be a sign of thegreat potential for transboundary ecotourism in the SavaBasin – and a truly sustainable alternative to economic pressures such as navigation and hydropower?

Tributaries of the Danube I: Sava – Waterway and ecosystem?

The conflict of interest between protecting ecosystemsand promoting water use and economy is particularly important in near natural riverine landscapes such as theSava River Basin. Since 2005, this basin is managed by the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) as thecoordinating and implementing body in the framework of theICPDR and EU WFD. A major issue is the harmonization ofnational regulation and transboundary cooperation to balance nature protection and use. However, the illustratedharmony may not properly reflect the real situation of threa-tened ecosystems. The articles dealing with biodiversity,management, navigation, nature reserves and pollution mayhelp readers develop their own opinion about progress andsuccess of the implementation of the Sava River Basin Man-agement Plan. Some skepticism is justified with regard topreventing/mitigating human impacts in the large and valu-able floodplains with their outstanding ecosystem services.

Jürg Bloesch, Editore-mail: [email protected]

Figure 1. The famous Bridge over the Drina, a major tributary to the Sava River(Višegrad, BiH). It became immortal through the book of Ivo Andric and still is astrong symbol of transboundary conflicts and cooperation. Photo from Internet byj.budissin (Julian Nitzsche), 20 August 2007


Introduction

The Sava River Basin (SRB) covers an area of 95,719km2

and is situated in the southern part of the Danube Basin (Figure 1). Together with its tributaries, this 940 km long watercourse represents a mighty river system. The Savaflows from western mountains in Slovenia, throughout lowlands of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia,joining the Danube in Belgrade (river km 1171, elevationabout 71 m a.s.l.). According to average discharge(1,513m3/s at station Sremska Mitrovica, about 100 kmfrom the confluence to the Danube – ISRBC 2009), it is thelargest tributary of the Danube. Further, by catchment area,the Sava is the second largest sub-basin of the Danube afterthe Tisa River Basin. The SRB is shared by Bosnia and Herze-govina (40.0% of the basin area), Croatia (26.0%), Serbia(15.4%), Slovenia (11.0%), Montenegro (7.5%), and Albania(0.1%). About 8.8 million people live in the basin. Navigationis possible on > 50% of the Sava River, from the mouth upto the Kupa confluence (Croatian section).

Basic characteristics of the SRB – the diversity of natural features

The SRB is heterogeneous concerning overall environ-mental conditions. Due to the geographic position, diverseclimate, petrographic and pedological variety, and orographic characteristics, it is one of the most complex regions in Europe concerning the distribution of plants

Momir Paunovic: University of Belgrade, Institute for Biological Research, Belgrade, Serbia; e-mail: [email protected] Grošelj: International Sava River Basin Commission, Zagreb, Croatia; e-mail: [email protected]

and animals (Lopatin &Matvejev 1995). (Palaeo)historical factors strongly influenced the migration of flora and faunain glaciation/interglaciation periods.

The Sava River catchment is characterized by the domi-nant moderate climate of the northern hemisphere with dis-tinct mountainous climate zones. In general, the regionfeatures pronounced cold and hot seasons. Average annualair temperature for the whole Sava Basin is about 9.5°C,with mean monthly temperatures between –1.5 (January)and 20°C (July). Precipitation shows variable temporal andspatial distribution. Average annual rainfall over the SRBwas estimated at about 1,100 mm.

The elevation of the SRB with a mean of 545 m a.s.l.ranges between 71 m at the mouth of the Sava River in Belgrade (Serbia) and 2,864 m (Triglav, Julian Alps in Slove-nia). The general character of the relief is illustrated in Figure 2. Mountainous relief dominates in the upper basin(Slovenia) and in the southern basin. The hilly-mountainousrelief is situated in the Dinaric area in Croatia, and Bosniaand Herzegovina, with mountains up to 2,500 m, Monte-negro (peaks higher than 2,500 m – Bobotov Kuk, DurmitorMountain) and Northern Albania. A significant part of theDrina Basin (together with the Lim and the Uvac catch-ments) in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegrois characterized by a hilly-mountainous relief. The northernpart of the Sava Basin is situated in the Pannonian Plain,an area dominated by fertile, agricultural land. According toCLC (Corine Land Cover) database for the SRB, forests andsemi-natural areas dominate within the basin (55%), butagricultural areas are also abundant (42%).

Due to diverse geological substrate, relief, vegetationcover and climate conditions, the SRB is characterized bydifferent soil types. According to the FAO/UNESCO classi-fication system, Cambisols dominate within the SRB (mostlyEuthic Cambisols on limestone and Dystic Cambisols, while

Euthic Cambisols on Loess are limited to smallerareas). Leptosols, Luvisols and Podzoluvisols arealso abundant, while Pheozems, Fluvisols,Gleysols and Chernozem are restricted to specificparts of the SRB – for details see ISRBC (2009).

The Sava rises from the Sava Dolinka (sourceat 833 m a.s.l., total length about 45 km) and theSava Bohinka (source at 805 m a.s.l., total length31 km). The largest tributaries of the Sava Riverare the Drina (basin area 20,319.9 km2, length335.7 km), the Bosna (10,809.8 km2, 272 km),the Kupa/Kolpa (10,225.6 km2, 118.3 km), theUna (9,828.9 km2, 157.2 km) and the Vrbas(6,273.8 km2, 235 km) Rivers. Besides, 11 tribu-taries of the Sava River have a basin area largerthan 1,000 km2 – Ljubljanica, Savinja, Krka, Krap-

Overview of the Sava River Basin (SRB)

Figure 1. The geographical location of the Sava River Basin withinthe Danube River Basin


ina, Lonja, Ilova, Orljava, Ukrina, Tinja, Drinjaca,Bosut and Kolubara.

In general, the Sava River can be divided intothree geomorphological units: the Upper, the Mid-dle and the Lower Sava. The Upper Sava is char-acterized by a steep slope, torrential tributaries anddomination of coarse fractions in bottom substrate.Hilly mountain terrain dominates. The reach is 265km long (incl. Sava Dolinka, the longer headwater).The Upper Sava catchment is characterized by di-verse environmental conditions and con-sequently a complex biogeographical feature,which is illustrated by three coexisting ecoregionsnos. 4 (Alps), 5 (Dinaric western Balkan), and 11(Hungarian lowlands) (Illies 1978). The Middle Savais characterized by a moderate slope and flowsthrough lowland landscape. Pebbles and graveldominate mostly the bottom substrates. It is theshortest geomorphological unit (129 km long). Furtherdownstream at Sisak, at the confluence of the Una River,general changes in bottom characteristics from gravel tofine sediments determine the border between the Middleand the Lower Sava River. The Lower Sava is the longest(597 km) geomorphological unit. This section of the SavaRiver is a typical lowland watercourse: it is located withinthe plains, with a slope of 0.098‰; the width of the rivercorridor is up to 1,000m with relatively large depositionsdominated by small fractions of sand and silt. The Middleand the Lower Sava are situated within ecoregion 11.

Biodiversity

Despite evident changes and considerable anthro-pogenic pressure, the SRB still covers large areas with highpotential for biodiversity conservation. Floodplains along theSava River are of major conservational value and one of thehotspots of biodiversity in the region; this can be illustratedby the fact that 49 sites of importance for biodiversity con-servation have been identified along the river corridor(Anonymous 2009). Besides, there are eight National Parkswithin the SRB (Triglav, Plitvice, Sutjeska, Kozara, Una, Tara,Durmitor and Biogradska gora) with a total area of215,563.5 ha and seven RAMSAR sites (areas designatedaccording to The Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, RAMSAR2011): Bardaca Wetland (BA), Lonjsko Polje and Crna Mlaka(HR), Obedska Bara, Zasavica and Peštersko polje (RS) andCerknica Lake (SI), with a total area of 71,673 ha. ThePlitvice Lake National Park has been selected for UNESCOWorld Heritage site in 1979. The preliminary list of waterrelevant protected areas within the SRB comprise 165 siteslarger than 100 ha, with a total area of >18,200 km2

(Figure 2; Paunovic 2011).

The significant taxa richness has been documented forfish, aquatic macroinvertebrates and birds (Sommerwerk et

al. 2009). More than 55 fishes, including the sterlet(Acipenser ruthenus), are found in the Sava (Mrakovcic etal. 2006). For the Serbian river section, 62 macroinverte-brate species have been recorded (Paunovic et al. 2008).Thus, only within the Nature Park “Lonjsko Polje” (inun-dation area in the Middle Sava which is the largest re-maining floodplain in the entire Danube Basin – 510 km²)more than 35 fish and 43 dragonfly (Odonata) species havebeen identified. The Nature Park provides breeding habitatsfor 22 bird species, among them are rare birds such as theferruginous duck (Aythya nyroca), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and corncrake (Crex crex) (Schneider-Jacoby 1994). The effort of numerous institutions focusedon various aspects of biodiversity research and conservationwithin the SRB (see article by Erg & Dimovic).

Main pressures

The key drivers exerting significant pressure on aquaticecosystems in the SRB are agriculture (agrochemicals, pes-ticides, and pollution from pig and poultry farms), urbanisa-tion, industry (metallurgical, chemical, leather, textile, food,cellulose and paper industries – Jovicic et al. 1989), solidwaste disposals, hydropower, navigation and flood protection.Thermal pollution from conventional power plants (e.g. NikolaTesla, Obrenovac, Serbia) and a nuclear power plant (Krškoin Slovenia) occurs along the Sava. Since 2007, the WasteWater Treatment Plant (WWTP) of Zagreb contributes signi-ficantly to reduce pollution (see article by Ahel et al.).

International cooperation and SRB management

Proper understanding of complex large river systemssuch as the SRB is important for effective water manage-ment, including the protection of aquatic ecosystems. Ecosys-tem services and anthropogenic use must be balanced. Inparticular, the upstream impacts in the river and landscapewill affect downstream sites in a transboundary context.

Figure 2. The relief of the Sava River Basin and location of areas/sites designatedfor biodiversity and habitat conservation


monitored systematically. Thus, the River Basin ManagementPlan, defined by the EU WFD, as well as the national legis-lation recently adopted by the SRB countries could be an effective tool for successful water related managementwithin the SRB.

ReferencesAnonymous (2009): Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains

Sites Important for Biodiversity along the Sava River. LIFE 3rd Countries Project,Swiss SDC, Dutch BBI/Matra and the project partners

Illies J (Ed) (1978): Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fischer Verlag, 532 ppISRBC (2009): The Sava River Basin Analysis. International Sava River Basin Com-

mission, ZagrebJovicic M, Bogdanovic B, Popovic L, Marjanovic Z, Marjanovic N (1989): Prognoza

kvaliteta vode reke Save, In: Zbornik radova, Savjetovanje “Rijeka Sava- zaštita ikorišcenje voda” (Ed. M Mešstrov), 373–377. JAZU, Zagreb

Lopatin IK, Matvejev SD (1995): Kratka zoogeografija sa osnovama biogeografije i ekologije bioma Balkanskog poluostrva. Knjiga 1, Univerzitetski udžbenik,Ljubljana. 166

Mrakovcic M, Brigic A, Buj I, Caleta M, Mustafic P, Zanella D (2006): Crevena KnjigaSlatkovodnih Riba Hrvatske. Ministarstvo Kulture, Zagreb

Paunovic M (2011): Protected areas in the Sava River Basin - Background paper. Theresults of the Technical assistance in the preparation and implementation of theSava River Basin Management Plan (Ref. No. EuropeAid/128277/C/SER/Multi)

Paunovic M, Borkovic SS, Pavlovic SZ, Saicic ZS, Cakcic PD (2008): Results of the2006 Sava Survey – aquatic macroinvertebrates. Archives of Biological Science,Belgrade 60(2): 265–271

RAMSAR Site Database: A directory of wetlands of international importance –http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database/ – last accessed July 4 2011

Schneider-Jacoby M (1994): Sava and Drava – Ecological Value and Future of theTwo Main Rivers in Croatia. Periodicum Biologorum, Vol 96, 4, pp. 348-356

Sommerwerk N, Hein T, Schneider-Jacoby M, Baumgartner C, Ostojic A, Paunovic M,Bloesch J, Siber R, Tockner K (2009): Chapter 3, The Danube River Basin, pp.59–112 In: Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Robinson CT (eds), Rivers of Europe. Elsevier,Academic Press, San Diego

WFD (2000): Water Framework Directive – Directive of European Parliament and ofthe Council 2000/60/EC – Establishing a Framework for Community Action in theField of Water Policy

Numerous efforts were taken to investigate the SavaRiver and its tributaries (Anonymous 2009, Sommerwerk etal. 2009) and to provide data for effective water and natureconservation management within the region. Among otherinternational initiatives, the Framework Agreement for theSava River Basin (FASRB) is probably one of the most important. The FASRB was signed in 2002, ratified by theSava Countries in subsequent years and finally entered intoforce at the end of 2004. The agreement comprises co-operation in water management, including water protection,and its implementation is coordinated by the InternationalSava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) with Permanent Secretariat as an executive body (see the following two articles by Komatina). An outstanding example of joint efforts by Sava Countries was the project “Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains” (Anony-mous 2009) aimed to support the development of a comprehensive ecological network of protected sites.

The perspective

The SRB is currently in focus of efforts aiming to improve the water related management systems (Anony-mous 2009; Sommerwerk et al. 2009; Project “Technicalassistance in the preparation and implementation of theSava River Basin Management Plan” – Ref. No. EuropeAid/128277/ C/SER/Multi). This includes the implementationof the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) and numerous scientific programs. Hence, improvement of waterand biodiversity status can be expected in the future. Thepace of improvements strongly depends on the socio-eco-nomic situation in the region, and the changes must be

The Sava River is the richest-in-water tributary of theDanube with an average contribution of 25% to the totalDanube flow, and creates the second largest sub-basin sharing 12% of the Danube River Basin. The Sava River Basin(SRB) is known for its high environmental and socio-eco-nomic values. On the one hand, it is associated with a naturalbeauty all over the basin, an outstanding biological and land-scape diversity (represented by numerous natural wetlands,nature parks and protected areas) and large retention areasalong the river (Figures 1 and 2). On the other hand, there isa high potential for development such as waterway transportof cargo and passengers, hydropower generation, tourismand recreation, as well as other activities related to the useof water. A balanced approach to using this potential and preserving these values simultaneously is applied by the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC).

Framework for cooperation

The political changes in the region of former Yugoslaviain the 1990s, which turned the Sava River from the largestnational river into an international river, substantially chal-lenged water management in the SRB by seriously affectingits basic elements (hydrometeorological data exchange sys-tem, monitoring and early warning systems, etc.). Hence, thewater management was confined to national level of the newlycreated countries, unlike the integrated river basin manage-ment approach emerging in Europe at the same time (EUWater Framework Directive). In the SRB, these changes havealso caused a sharp decrease of economic activities such asnavigation. In other parts of Europe, inland waterway transporthas proven to be a competitive transport mode, being envi-ronmentally friendly and capable of reducing congestion ondensely used roads. Since then, the Sava River has beenhardly used for transport, for a number of reasons, includinga lack of infrastructure maintenance and investments.

Dejan Komatina: Secretary of the International Sava River Basin Commission; e-mail: [email protected]

The Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin –

a basis for sustainable development of the region


Figure 1. Mouth of the Drina River. Photo: Miroslav Jeremic Figure 2. Lonjsko polje - Kratecko. Photo: Boris Krstinic

For these reasons, a new international framework becamenecessary to ensure sustainable use, protection and manage-ment of water resources in the SRB, and thus enable betterlife conditions and raising living standard in the region. After aprocess of negotiations, the Framework Agreement on theSava River Basin (FASRB 2002), the first development-orientedmultilateral agreement in the post-conflict period concludedin the region after the agreements on peace and succession,has been produced and signed in 2002. After its ratification in2004, the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC,www.savacommission.org), as an international organizationwith responsibility to coordinate implementation of the FASRB,has been established in 2005. There are four Parties to theFASRB – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia. Contacts have been made with Montenegro, on possibilities for this country to become a Party, as well.

The overall objective of the FASRB is to establish andmaintain the transboundary cooperation to provide conditionsfor sustainable development within the SRB. The particularobjectives of the FASRB include (FASRB 2002):– establishment of an international regime of navigation on

the Sava River and its navigable tributaries;– establishment of a sustainable water management in the

basin including environmental protection, and– management of hazards, such as floods, droughts, ice or

accidents causing water pollution.

The FASRB integrates all aspects of water resourcesmanagement, i.e. sustainability issues such as protection ofwater and aquatic ecosystem, as well as development issuesassociated with water use (navigation, hydropower genera-tion, water supply, sewerage and drainage, fishery, tourismand recreation). Thus, the FASRB provides the ISRBC withthe broadest scope of work among European basin organi-zations, making it responsible for coordination of the followingactivities:– preparation and implementation of joint plans for the basin

(e.g. river basin management plan, flood risk managementplan);

– preparation of development programs for the basin (e.g.for navigation and tourism);

– establishment of integrated systems for the basin (Geo-graphic Information System – GIS, River Information Ser-vices – RIS, flood forecasting and warning system, etc.);

– harmonization of national regulation with the EU regula-tion, and

– development of protocols for regulating specific aspectsof the FASRB implementation.

Considerable attention of the ISRBC is paid to the issuesof cooperation, public participation and stakeholder involve-ment. The ISRBC is given the capacity for making decisionsin the field of navigation and providing recommendations onall other issues.

Approach to sustainable development

Since the beginning of the FASRB implementation, a widerange of activities have been undertaken or launched. In linewith recent processes and initiatives on the Danube level(ICPDR et al. 2008, ICPDR 2009, 2010) and the Europeanlevel (EC 2010a,b), an updated Strategy on Implementationof the FASRB (ISRBC 2011a) and the accompanying ActionPlan for the Period 2011–2015 (ISRBC 2011b) have beendeveloped to govern future implementation.

Based on the Sava River Basin Analysis Report (ISRBC2009), the key activity in river basin management (RBM) isthe preparation of the first Sava RBM Plan in accordance withthe EU Water Framework Directive and with financial supportof the EC. To ensure an integrated approach from the verybeginning, issues such as flood management and navigationdevelopment were addressed already in the Sava River BasinAnalysis. Following the drafting schedule and the public con-sultation process, the Sava RBM Plan is expected to be fi-nalized and adopted in 2012. In addition to these activities,the Protocol on Sediment Management to the FASRB, aimingto regulate the sediment management issues in accordancewith the RBM Plan, has been drafted and entered the processof harmonization by the Parties, while the Protocol on trans-boundary impact to the FASRB is under development on theISRBC level.


phase of implementation has been launched, with the planto be finalized in 2012. Advances in the exchange of hydro-meteorological information and data within the basin havebeen made, including a revival of the Hydrological Yearbookof the Sava River Basin after more than 20 years. Two important projects are in a preparatory phase, namely a new Hydrological Study for the Sava River Basin, and the development and upgrade of the hydro-meteorological in-formation system and the flood forecasting and warning system in the basin.

Cooperation of the ISRBC with a large number of inter-national organizations and national institutions such as agen-cies, offices, services, institutes and universities has beenestablished and maintained. The basis for cooperation withthe ICPDR and Danube Commission has been strengthenedby signing memoranda of understanding on cooperation witheach of the two organizations. The EC and UNECE (UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe) support to FASRB-related projects is becoming steady and their recognition ofseveral priority projects of the ISRBC in the context of the EUStrategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) indicates a goodwill for continued support.

To ensure public participation and stakeholder involve-ment in the FASRB implementation, cooperation with NGOsand other institutions and local actors from the SRB has beenestablished by creating a network of observers to the ISRBC.A number of mechanisms for information and consultationof stakeholders and/or wide public are available, includingthe official web-site (www.savacommission.org), the SavaNewsFlash bulletin, publications and promotion material ofthe ISRBC, celebration of the Sava Day (June 1), press re-leases, press conferences and media briefings, as well asthe organization of consultation workshops, public presenta-tions and other meetings with stakeholders. Keeping in mindthat mainly the stakeholders from governmental and non-governmental sectors have been involved so far, the newStrategy on Implementation of the FASRB guides to furtherimprove and broaden stakeholder involvement, and to seek-ing a synergy of a top-down and a bottom-up approach.Thus, special attention will be dedicated to exploring pos-sibilities and elaborating options for the establishment of a multi-stakeholder platform that would facilitate and further strengthen the involvement of the civil, academic andbusiness sectors.

Relevance of the approach

Past experience in the FASRB implementation shows thatthe ISRBC approach is:

– cohesive, by providing conditions for the cooperation ofthe countries after a conflict, the implementation of joint,basin-wide projects, as well as the harmonization of national regulation, methodologies and procedures;

– integrated, not only in terms of the geographical scope(covering the whole basin and the ecosystem), but also in

In the field of flood management, the Flood Action Planfor the SRB has been prepared in accordance with the FloodAction Programme for the Danube River Basin of the ICPDR,providing the first program of measures for each Party toachieve the defined targets for flood management in its partof the SRB until 2015. The Protocol on Flood Protection tothe FASRB, which aims to provide the legal basis for coop-eration of the Parties in line with the EU Flood Directive, in-cluding the preparation of the Flood Risk Management Planfor the SRB, has been developed and signed, and is currentlyunder ratification.

For the purpose of an efficient accident prevention andcontrol in the SRB, the ISRBC participates in continuous test-ing of the existing Accident Emergency Warning System ofthe ICPDR. Efforts are being made to improve the work of thePrincipal International Alert Centers (PIAC) in the Parties tothe FASRB, including the organization of training courses forthe operational staff of the PIACs, in cooperation with theICPDR. The Protocol on Emergency Situations to the FASRBhas been drafted and entered the process of harmonizationby the Parties. As an important future activity, developmentof a water contingency management plan for the basin isplanned.

Significant efforts are being invested into development ofeconomic activities in the SRB such as navigation or tourism.Navigation development was initiated by the Protocol on the Navigation Regime to the FASRB that is the basis to re-habilitate the Sava River waterway in an environment-friendlyand navigation-safe way (see article on Sava River navigation).Given that hydropower development is considered an im-portant issue in the SRB, the ISRBC joined the process recentlylaunched by the ICPDR with the aim of developing guidingprinciples on integrating environmental aspects in the use ofexisting hydropower plants, as well as in the planning andconstruction of new plants (ICPDR 2011).

Being aware of the great potentials for development of tourism in an environmentally friendly manner, the firstNautical and Tourist Guide of the Sava River has been de-veloped in cooperation with regional chambers of commerceof the Parties (ISRBC 2011c); the preparation of a masterplan for the development of nautical tourism in the basin isplanned as the next step. To provide additional support toeconomic development in the region, the preparation of aproject on fostering the contribution of small and mediumenterprises to sustainable development of the SRB has beeninitiated, targeting not only river transport and tourism, butalso other economic activities (food production, small hydropower plants, fish farming, shipbuilding, etc.).

Considerable attention is paid to cross-cutting issuessupporting the FASRB implementation – information man-agement, and hydrological and meteorological issues. In theinformation management, the Sava GIS Strategy has beendeveloped taking into account the EU INSPIRE Directive andthe Water Information System for Europe, and the initial


terms of the scope of work (both sustainability and devel-opment elements included);

– transparent, as it is based on a number of public partici-pation and stakeholder involvement activities;

– aligned with relevant EU and UNECE regulation;– sub-regional, offering a “finer resolution” of results that

are complementary to those obtained on a regional scale;– pragmatic and practical, providing concrete “products” to

the Parties, such as joint plans, development programs,protocols, harmonized regulation, integrated systems, etc.

The approach is considered relevant to the processes ona wider (Danube and EU) scale, such as those associatedwith EUSDR and EU 2020 Strategy (EC 2010b), for severalreasons:

– the overall objective of the EUSDR and FASRB is identical:sustainable development of the region;

– there is an obvious conformity of the ISRBC approach andits priority projects with the EUSDR priorities, and a highpotential for synergy, as the implementation of the ISRBCprojects within the EUSDR framework can contribute tothe implementation of both EUSDR and FASRB;

– the sub-regional level, such as the SRB level, is likely tobe the most effective level from the viewpoint of theEUSDR implementation;

– a majority of the ongoing activities of the ISRBC fully matchthe three main priorities of the EU 2020 Strategy, i.e. sus-tainable, smart and inclusive growth.

The approach seems also to be relevant to other regions(other parts of South-Eastern Europe, Mediterranean region,Western Europe, Central Asia), given their interest in the Savamodel of cooperation.

Although the FASRB has proven to be a good platform forintensified contacts and improved cooperation among theParties, a number of challenges and (existing or potential)obstacles for the FASRB implementation have been identified.These are, generally, associated with:

– differences between the countries (i.e. status with respectto EU, eligibility for approaching funds, level of economicdevelopment, organizational structure in decision-makingprocess, environmental awareness of the public);

– financing of priority projects, strategic studies, and the es-tablishment of integrated systems for the basin;

– resolving conflicts of interests of different users of water,especially as they are likely to increase in future due toclimate change.

Despite of these challenges, the FASRB provides a solidbasis for the integrated water resources management in theSRB, and its implementation is making a steady progress to-ward the key objective – a sustainable development of theregion within the basin.

ReferencesEC (2010a): EU Strategy for the Danube Region, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_

policy/cooperation/danube/index_en.htm EC (2010b): Europe 2020 – A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, http://europa.eu/press_room/pdf/complet_en_barroso___007_-_europe_2020_-_en_version.pdf

FASRB (2002): Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin,http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ICPDR (2009): Danube River Basin Management Plan,http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/danube_rbm_plan_ready.htm

ICPDR (2010): Danube Basin: Shared waters – Joint responsibilities, Danube Declaration adopted by the Ministers of Environment on 16 February 2010,http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/mm2010.htm

ICPDR (2011): Assessment Report on Hydropower in the Danube Region. Draft paper 24.5.2011, in preparation

ICPDR, Danube Commission, ISRBC (2008): Joint Statement on Guiding Principlesfor the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin, http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2009): Sava River Basin Analysis Report,http://www.savacommission.org/publication

ISRBC (2011a): Strategy on Implementation of the FASRB,http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2011b): Action Plan for the Period 2011–2015, http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2011c): Nautical and Tourist Guide of the Sava River,http://www.savacommission.org/publication

The Sava River contributes almost 600 km of waterwayto the Danube transport network (Figure 1). After the fall offormer Yugoslavia, the ratification of the Framework Agree-ment on the Sava River Basin (FASRB) in 2004, and the establishment of the International Sava River Basin Commis-sion (ISRBC, www.savacommission.org) in 2005 provided thebasis for transboundary cooperation and sustainable devel-opment of the region within the basin (FASRB 2002). In particular, the ruined navigation needed an economic impulse. The establishment of an international navigationregime on the Sava River, while respecting, at the same time,

Dejan Komatina: Secretary of the International Sava River Basin Commission; e-mail: [email protected]

Development of navigation on the Sava River – an integrated approach

the other objectives of the FASRB, requires an integrated andsustainable approach, balancing the needs for navigation de-velopment against the needs of other water sub-sectors (i.e.other kinds of water use, protection against detrimental effectsof water, and protection of water and aquatic ecosystem).

Background

Until the 1990s, the Sava River used to be the largest national river of former Yugoslavia, and the Sava water resources were managed in an integrated manner. Transporton the river, which was around 10 million tons in 1982, decreased to 5.7 million tons in 1990. The war from 1991


to 1995 significantly influenced economic activities in the re-gion as well as waterway and port infrastructure, and conse-quently cargo traffic dropped to less than 1 million tons. Sincethen, the Sava River has been hardly used for transport, primarily due to a lack of maintenance and investments, whichresulted in a poor quality of the infrastructure, low level of navigation safety due to unexploded ordnances, and poor in-termodal road and railway connections. Navigation conditionshave been unfavourable due to a limited draft during long periods, a limited width of the fairway and a limited height forpassages under some bridges, as well as insufficient marking.Navigability of the waterway, which used to be a class IV waterway in the past, was reduced to class III at many sectionsof the river. In other parts of Europe, on the contrary, inlandwaterway transport has proven to be a competitive transportmode, being considered as the safest and the most environ-mentally friendly land transport mode, and capable of reducingcongestion on densely used roads (EC 2006).

Given such an initial situation, the ratification of theFASRB and establishment of the ISRBC provided a good basisfor rehabilitation and development of navigation on the SavaRiver, which was further strengthened by a simultaneous rati-fication of the Protocol on Navigation Regime to the FASRB.The FASRB declares the Sava River waterway open, and theentrance to the ports free, for merchant vessels of any state.It also provides the ISRBC, in the field of naviga-tion, with the legal capacity of making decisionsthat are obligatory for the Parties. With the inten-tion to ensure the application of an integrated ap-proach to develop navigation, the ISRBC has beenactively involved in the process of developmentand implementation of the Joint Statement onGuiding Principles for the Development of InlandNavigation and Environmental Protection in theDanube River Basin (ICPDR et al. 2008), led jointlyby the ICPDR, Danube Commission and theISRBC, where the issue is continuously discussedby a variety of stakeholders from the navigationand environmental sectors.

Integrated approach to navigation development

Since the beginning of the FASRB implementation, con-siderable efforts have been invested by the ISRBC and theParties to provide conditions necessary for the Sava River tobecome an important, environment-friendly and navigation-safe lifeline for inland transport (ISRBC 2009). The under-taken activities have been focused on two major issues: (a)planning for rehabilitation and development of the Sava Riverwaterway infrastructure, and (b) improvement of technicalstandards and safety of navigation, with the aim to preventenvironmental risks such as oil pollution.

With regard to rehabilitation and development of theSava River waterway infrastructure, a preliminary docu-mentation has been developed and future steps have beenagreed by the Parties (ISRBC 2011a,b). Several studies havebeen conducted to assess project feasibility and transportdemand (Figure 2), and estimate construction costs, for twooptions: (a) rehabilitation of the whole waterway to class IV,and (b) establishment of a class Va waterway at the wholelength (from Belgrade to Sisak). According to the feasibilitystudy, the upgrade of the whole waterway to class Va is feasible, while the difference of the costs between the twooptions is within 10%. However, to minimize negative envi-ronmental impacts of the construction works, the ISRBC hasdecided to develop the waterway to class Va only at 40% ofthe total length (section Belgrade – Brcko), while the water-way will be rehabilitated to Class IV at the rest part (sectionBrcko – Sisak). For the same reason, no changes of the present watercourse (no straightening) have been planned,so that, in sharp bends, only one-way navigation is foreseen.

Although the planning process has been launched andlargely executed before approval of the Joint Statement, avariety of mechanisms for information and consultation ofstakeholders and/or broad public has been applied by theISRBC from the very beginning to ensure transparency (seearticle on FASRB). The project progress is regularly reportedwithin the Joint Statement implementation process. With theaim to ensure environmental sustainability and further align

Figure 1. Navigation on the Sava River (in Belgrade). Photo: Dragan M. Babovic

Figure 2. Estimation of minimum and maximum traffic volume on the Sava River for the year 2027 (ISRBC 2008)


the project with the principles of the Joint Statement and theManual on Good Practices in Sustainable Waterway Plan-ning, developed within the EU FP7 project PLATINA (2010),a review of the preliminary documentation was conducted bythe EC. For coordination of further activities, the ISRBC is establishing a body of multidisciplinary character intended tobe open for stakeholders, including NGOs. The remaining partof the planning phase, for which EC funding has been ap-proved, is expected to be finalized in 2013.

For the purpose of rehabilitation and development of navi-gation on the Sava River, several other activities have been performed, including full restoration of the waterway markingsystem, removal of unexploded ordnances from the riverbanks, and establishment of the River Information Services(RIS) on the Sava River, in accordance with the EU RIS Directive.

The sustainability of the approach is expected to be ad-ditionally improved by a climate adaptation plan for the SavaRiver Basin (SRB), which is aiming to assess possible impactsof climate change in the basin and to provide guidelines fordifferent water sub-sectors, including navigation and envi-ronmental protection.

The administrative and legal framework has beenstrengthened by development of a set of rules and other documents related to technical issues and safety of navi-gation, harmonized with the corresponding EU and UNECE reg-ulations. The Protocol on Prevention of Water Pollution causedby Navigation to the FASRB has been signed and is currentlyundergoing ratification. The Protocol on Sediment Manage-ment to the FASRB, aiming to regulate, inter alia, the issue ofexploitation of sand and gravel from the river bed, in accor-dance with the Sava River Basin Management Plan (Sava RBMPlan), is in process of final harmonization by the Parties.

Efforts have also been made to develop other economicactivities that can benefit from the use of waterway infrastruc-ture. Being aware of the great potential for an environment-friendly tourism in the SRB, the first Nautical and Tourist Guideof the Sava River (ISRBC 2011c) has been developed in coop-eration with regional chambers of commerce of the Parties,while the preparation of a master plan for development of nau-tical tourism in the basin is planned as the next step. A projecton fostering the contribution of small and medium enterprisesto sustainable development of the SRB, which has recently

been initiated, targets not only river transport and tourism, butalso other economic activities, including shipbuilding.

Partly as a consequence of the above mentioned politicalachievements, several indicators of development in trafficand opening of new cargo flows on the Sava River are evidentsuch as transport of oil products from Brod/Bosanski Brod,new developments in Serbian ports (Sremska Mitrovica,Šabac), as well as the first passenger cruise along the wholeSava waterway after 150 years.

Conclusion

In accordance with the broad scope of the FASRB, theISRBC makes efforts to balance needs for development ofnavigation and requirements for environmental protection, byapplying an integrated approach. The issue of navigation de-velopment is considered as an integral part of the Sava RBMPlan, which is being developed in accordance with the EUWater Framework Directive. Technical standards and safetyof navigation are being improved, and the administrative andlegal framework is being strengthened, fully in line with thecorresponding EU and UNECE regulations, while planning ofthe new waterway tends to minimize negative environmentalimpacts of the rehabilitation works. The approach is believedto provide a crucial contribution to sustainable developmentof the SRB, thus matching the strategic goal of the FASRB.

ReferencesEC (2006): NAIADES – An Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/inland/promotion/promo-tion_en.htm

FASRB (2002): Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin,http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ICPDR, Danube Commission, ISRBC (2008): Joint Statement on Guiding Principlesfor the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in theDanube River Basin, http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2008): Feasibility Study and Project Documentation for the Rehabilitationand Development of Transport and Navigation on the Sava River Waterway,http://www.savacommission.org/project

ISRBC (2009): Rehabilitation and Development of Navigation in the Sava RiverBasin, an ISRBC publication, 24 pp

ISRBC (2011a): Strategy on Implementation of the FASRB,http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2011b): Action Plan for the Period 2011–2015,http://www.savacommission.org/basic_docs

ISRBC (2011c): Nautical and Tourist Guide of the Sava River, http://www.savacommission.org/publication

PLATINA (2010): Manual on good practices in sustainable waterway planning.ICPDR, SWP 5.3 Project, TREN/FP7/TR/218362, July 2010, 107 pp

Features of the Sava River

Due to the variety of habitats the river spans from itssource to the confluence, from high mountains to lowland

Boris Erg: IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe, Belgrade, Serbia, e-mail: [email protected]ška Dimovic: WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, Belgrade, Serbia, e-mail: [email protected]

Protected Areas along the Sava River

wetlands, the Sava River is host to an exceptional range ofbiodiversity. While the alpine headwaters and Upper Savaprovide valuable near-natural aquatic ecosystems, the low-land floodplains are characterized by typical hydro-morpho-logical features of a lowland river with associated speciesand habitats. Certainly the most important landscape char-acteristics are found in the Central Sava Basin with a mosaicof natural floodplains and cultural landscapes formed by tra-


ditional land-use patterns, in the past typical to the river val-leys of Central Europe (IUCN 2010).

The Central Sava River is a unique example how flood-plains can diminish flood waves and how flood control couldbe combined with landscape and biodiversity conservation.With an area of 109,000 hectares it is the largest floodplainecosystem in the Danube River Basin and an important nutrient-sink for the Upper and Central Sava Basin (Schnei-der-Jacoby 2005). With its great self-purification potentialand a high ecological value, the alluvial wetlands of the SavaRiver are the basis for sustainable flood control along theriver. Taking all this into account, there is no surprise that theSava floodplains have been selected as a focal region in thePan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy(PEBLDS) of the Council of Europe, and listed as a river corridor of European importance for preserving biological heritage. Overall, the Sava River represents one of the bio-diversity hotspots in south-eastern Europe and is of great importance for biodiversity conservation.

The Sava River features the largest floodplain area in theDanube River Basin (except for the Danube Delta) as well asthe largest complex of alluvial floodplain wetlands. It is knownfor its species and habitat diversity. Five Ramsar sites havebeen designated along the Sava River thus far: Lonjsko andMokro Polje in Croatia, Bardaca in BiH and Obedska Baraand Zasavica in Serbia. The area of Lonjsko and Mokro Poljeis one of the largest alluvial wetlands in Europe includingfloodplains of seasonally flooded Quercus and Populus wood-lands, marshes, meadows and fishponds. The site is hometo 236 bird species and is especially important for breedingbirds, of which 33 are threatened species, such as thespoonbill Platalea leucorodia, the ferruginous duck Aythyanyroca and the corncrake Crex crex. These alluvial wetlandsof the Sava River located in Croatia are also listed as an Im-portant Bird Area with special importance for breeding stocksand raptors and where especially the ferruginous duck, theimperial eagle Aquila heliaca and the white-tailed eagle Hali-aeetus albicilla are listed as species of global conservationconcern.

Many of these important bird species are also on theIUCN Red List of threatened species. Birds are invaluable bio-indicators of the quality of wetlands. E.g., the breeding suc-cess of the white stork Ciconia ciconia and the number ofnests per village are related to the size of the alluvial wetlandsnearby. Spoonbill feed when the water level decreases in thealluvial wetlands (Schneider-Jacoby et al. 2001). Wetlandsare cradles of biological diversity, providing the water andprimary productivity on which countless species of plants andanimals depend for survival. They support high concentra-tions of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and in-vertebrate species. Wetlands are also important storehousesof plant genetic material. These functions, values and attri-butes can only be maintained if the ecological processes ofwetlands are kept functioning. Unfortunately, and in spite ofimportant progress made in recent decades, wetlands con-

tinue to be among the most threatened ecosystems, owingmainly to on-going drainage, conversion, pollution, and over-exploitation of their resources. That’s what most of wetlandsin Europe have in common, including the Sava River flood-plains. Certainly one of the main challenges for the manage-ment of the Sava River is to reconcile economic developmentwith the protection of its biodiversity (Zingstra et al. 2006).

Protected areas along the Sava River

Protected areas (PA) along the Sava River are defined byvarious legal frameworks: EU acquis communautaire, na-tional laws and international conservation standards. Differentconservation frameworks apply primarily due to the dif-ference in the political status of the Sava River countries inrelation to EU. What the four countries have in common isthat the IUCN protected area management system is appliedacross borders. The system provides the definition of a PAand describes six categories of protected areas, namely:Strict nature reserve/Wilderness area, National park, Naturalmonument or feature, Habitat/species management area,Protected landscape/seascape, and Protected area with sus-tainable use of natural resources. According to the guidelinesfor protected area management categories developed by theIUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA)in 2008, a protected area is defined as: “A clearly definedgeographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed,through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem serv-ices and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). Apart from thedifference in the type of protected areas designated alongthe Sava River, there is a difference in terms of the PA cover-age from country to country, management structures, avail-able resources and management effectiveness. Being amember to EU, Slovenia has introduced the Natura 2000 net-work in addition to PAs designated according to the IUCN PAcategorization system. The Natura 2000 network is underdevelopment in Croatia as the country is approaching the EUwith expected accession in 2013. In Bosnia and Herzegovina,and Serbia, only PAs designated following the IUCN categori-sation system are in place, even though significant steps to-wards the designation of national Emerald networks havebeen done. Some initial steps on the elaboration of the Natura2000 network in Serbia have been undertaken since 2010and future activities in that respect are expected to com-mence in BiH. When it comes to ecological networks, two im-portant national processes have taken place recently in theSava countries. Croatia designated its national ecological net-work CRO-NEN in 2007, while Serbia embarked on a similarprocess in 2010 by passing a Decree on Ecological Network.

The coverage of protected areas in Slovenia according tothe IUCN PA management categories system is 12.5% whilethe Natura 2000 sites cover 36% of the territory of Slovenia(Bizjak et al. 2008). Protected area categories in Slovenia in-clude: National park, Regional park, Nature reserve, Naturalmonument, and Landscape park. The Nature Conservation


Act in Croatia recognizes the following nine protected areacategories: Strict reserve, Special reserve, National park, Na-ture park, Regional park, Nature monument, Significant land-scape, Park forest, and Park architecture monument. Thetotal coverage of protected areas in Croatia is 9.5% (Min-istarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske 2011). In Serbia, thecoverage of protected areas is 5.86% whereas protectedareas include the following categories: Strict nature reserve,Special nature reserve, National park, Nature monument,Protected habitat, Landscape of exceptional features (Pro-tected landscape), and Nature park (Radovic 2011).

In terms of the coverage of protected areas, Bosnia andHerzegovina falls behind with only 2.2%. This is way belowscientific and international standards and insufficient for theproper conservation of the country’s rich biodiversity, in par-ticular bearing in mind that some 2/3 of BiH lies in the SavaRiver Basin. Bardaca Wetland, situated at the confluence ofthe Vrbas River to the Sava River, that counts among the mostimportant wetlands in BiH, is only in the process of designa-tion according to national law. However, the site was enlistedin the wetlands of international importance according to theRamsar Convention back in 2007. Apart from Bardaca Wet-land, several other sites along the Sava River in BiH wouldqualify as a protected area (e.g. Modrac, Raca, Prnjavor fish-pond, etc.), yet the process of official designation is delayed.In Slovenia, protected areas along the Sava River mainly in-clude habitats and species as part of the national Natura2000 network. The central part of the Sava River hosts someof the most important wetlands in the whole Danube RiverBasin, spanning Turopolje, Odransko Polje Protected Land-scape, Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, as well as Mokro and Sunjsko Polje. With its total size of 506.5 km2, Lonjsko Poljeis the largest intact wetland in the Danube River Basin. Together with the adjacent Morko Polje it was proclaimed aRamsar site in 1993 (Gugic & Cosic-Flajsig 2004). At the national level, Lonjsko Polje is designated as a Nature Park.Other important protected areas along the Sava in Croatiainclude Odransko Polje and Gajna Protected Landscape, bothgood examples of natural floodplains interspersed with wetmeadows and pastures. Both protected areas provide excel-lent conditions for the maintenance of traditional land usepractices that include extensive grazing of autochthonousbreeds in natural environments. These practices were oncewidely spread along the Sava River and instrumental to shap-ing the landscapes of today. Luckily, they still can be foundalong the river; good examples of maintained traditional landuse are Odransko Polje, Lonjsko Polje, Gajna, and Zasavica.Further downstream a vast transboundary forest area sharedby Croatia and Serbia, Spacva basin and Morovicko-bosutskesume, respectively, represents the largest common oak low-land forest in the Sava River Basin covering more than60,000 ha. The process of assessing conservation potentialas well as socio-economic features as a necessary step inthe process of protected area designation is on-going bothin Croatia and Serbia. At the moment, only a few small forestnature reserves are designated within this vast forest area.

Apart from Morovicko-bosutske sume, the most importantprotected areas in Serbia are Obedska bara and ZasavicaSpecial Nature Reserves. Both sites are not only designatedaccording to national law but also recognized as Ramsarsites. Obedska bara, in most part a naturally flooded area, isknown for its diverse wetland habitats and old-growth oakforests and is regarded as one of the biodiversity hotspots

Table 1. Important sites for biodiversity along the Sava River according to the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, as defined by the Sava Floodplains ProtectionLIFE project (IUCN 2010)

Country No. Site name

Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Raca (Bijeljina) (border with Serbian site 37)

2. Loncari (Brcko)

3. Žabar (Modrica)

4. Modrac

5. Liješce (Bos. Brod)

6. Patkovaca i Ukrima River (Derventa)

7. Velika i Mala Tisina

8. Donji Svilaj (Bos. Šamac)

9. Bardaca

10. Srbac

11. Bosanska Gradiška

12. Trnopolje i Sanicani (Prijedor)

13. Spreca i Klokotnica

14. Plivska jezera

15. Ribnjak Prnjavor

16. Odžak – Vojskova

Croatia 17. Sava

18. Sava – Hruscice

19. Savica

20. Turopolje

21. Odransko polje

22. Lonjsko polje

23. Sunjsko polje

24. Ribnjaci Lipovljani

25. Ribnjaci Slobostina

26. Prasnik

27. Jelas polje

28. Dvorina

29. Gajna

30. Spacvanski bazen (border with Serbian site 41)

31. Sava – Podsused

32. Zutica

Serbia 33. Veliko Ratko Ostrvo – Usce

34. Crni Lug – Ribnjak Zivaca

35. Bojcinska suma

36. Orlaca

37. Usce Drine (border with BiH site 1)

38. Obedska bara

39. Zasavica

40. Trskovaca

41. Morovicko–Bosutske sume (border with Croatian site 30)

Slovenia 42. Zelenci in Ledine pod Ratecami

43. Sava Bohinjka z Mostnico in Ribnico

44. Sava Dolinka od Zelencev do Hrušice

45. Sava od Mavcic do Save

46. Sava od Radovljice do Kranja

47. Sava Bohinjka in Sava Dolinka

48. Julijske Alpe

49. Sava od Radec do državne meje.


along the entire Sava River. At the confluence of the SavaRiver to the Danube River at Belgrade lies Veliko Ratno ostrvo,a naturally flooded river island protected as a Landscape ofOutstanding Features.

Governance types and PA management effectivenessvary greatly from country to country. Governance encom-passes two IUCN governance types – protected areas gov-erned by government and private governance. PAs governedby state include those managed by public institutions with aparticular mandate to manage a PA (e.g. Public InstitutionLonjsko Polje Nature Park) or public enterprises responsiblefor the management of natural resources (e.g. Public ForestEnterprise Vojvodinasume), whereas an example of a privategoverned PA is Zasavica SNR that is managed by a civil so-ciety. The governance type in part defines the managementeffectiveness: PAs managed by public institutions and civilsocieties are the most effective ones. Some involvement oflocal communities in the management of PAs is observed,although community-conserved protected areas are not typ-ical for the Sava River.

Overarching regional initiatives and projects

The International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC),coordinating the implementation of the Framework Agree-ment on the Sava River Basin (FASRB), elaborates an Inte-grated River Basin Management (ISRBM) Plan to meet therequirements of the EU Water Framework Directive and otherrelevant European legislation and ensure transboundary sus-tainable water management. One of the main tasks of theconservation community is to make sure that biodiversityconcerns and protected areas are properly recognized anddealt with in the future Sava River Basin Management Plan.

On the side of biodiversity research and protected areas,an international project led by IUCN has been launched in2007 in order to support the Sava River countries in identi-fying, designating and managing the ecological and land-scape diversity along the Sava River. The project was aimedat supporting the implementation of the EU Birds and HabitatsDirectives by identifying key biodiversity sites along the SavaRiver following the requirements of the two EU directives. Itslong-term objective was protection of species and habitatsof the Sava floodplains as well as the designiation of a co-herent ecological network of protected areas, ecological cor-ridors and buffer zones along the Sava River. As a result, 49sites in four countries have been identified as sites importantfor biodiversity conservation along the Sava River (Table 1).The Sava River itself functions as the connecting backbonefor the network of sites. The project has proposed to includethe selected 49 sites in a trans-border ecological networkalong the Sava River.

There was a number of preceding activities that have putthe Sava River in the spotlight and brought it to the attentionof the international conservation community for its biodiver-sity and landscape values. In 1995 IUCN selected seven

areas as the case studies for the “Best practices for Conser-vation Planning in Rural Areas: Biological and Landscape Di-versity in Central and Eastern Europe”. According to thisstudy, Lonjsko Polje Nature Park was defined as an “out-standing example of a floodplain ecosystem which has beencreated by the interaction between long standing agriculturalpractices and maintained by flood controls for water reten-tion” (IUCN European Programme 2005). Apart from this,there were a number of pan-regional, transboundary andsite-based activities taking place along the Sava River aimedat enhancing biodiversity research, designating new and im-proving the management of the existing protected areas,such as those led by ECNC (Pan-European Ecological Network), Wageningen University (Sava ecological network),EuroNatur (extensive research of Sava biodiversity and hydro-morphology), WWF (observers to the ISRBC), and others. An important role in the conservation of biological andlandscape features of the Sava River lies with numerousNGOs who relentlessly work and campaign for the Sava River.

Conclusion

The status of protected areas along the Sava River variesfrom country to country with the prevalence of protectedlandscapes and nature reserves category wise. No nationalparks are being designated along the river. The actual recog-nition of the IUCN Protected Area management categoriessystem and the harmonization of national Natura 2000 net-works are crucial for the future conservation status of Savawetlands. The Sava River and its floodplains serve manifoldpurposes that all have to be taken into account while planningfuture conservation action, be it on national level or in a trans-boundary context. A careful designation of new protectedareas, improvement of the management effectiveness of theexisting ones with high level of public participation, as wellas the establishment of a coherent ecological network alongthe Sava River rank among the main conservation objectivesin the future. All this implies further research, support to conservation planning at local and national level with ac-tive involvement of all stakeholder groups, and smooth transboundary and regional cooperation. Well-functioningprotected areas along the Sava River are as much importantfor the conservation of species and habitats as for the wealthof landscapes, local communities and their economies.

ReferencesBizjak J, Vidic J, Berginc M, Hladnik J, Zupanc Hrastar S, Groznik Zeiler K, Kristanc

J, Vicar A (2008): Zavarovana obmocja v Sloveniji. Ministarstvo za okolje in prostorRepublike Slovenije

Dudley N (ed) (2008): Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Gugic G, Cosic-Flajsig G (2004): The development plan for Lonjsko Polje Ramsar site– ways towards integrated river basin management. 5th European Regional Meet-ing on the implementation and effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention. Yerevan,Armenia. http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/mtg/mtg_reg_europe2004_docs1h2.pdf Accessed on 28 August 2011

International Sava River Basin Commission (2009): Sava River Basin Analysis Report. International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) in cooperation withthe Parties to the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. Zagreb


Schneider-Jacoby M, Mikuska T, Kovacic D, Mikuska J, Šetina M, Tadic Z (2001):Dispersal by accident – the Spoonbill population, Platalea leucorodia,in Croatia. Acrocephalus 22: 191–204

Schneider-Jacoby M (2005): The Sava and Drava Flood Plains: Threatened Ecosystems of International Importance. Large Rivers 16/1-2, Arch. Hydrobiol.Suppl. 158/1–2: 249–288

Zingstra H, Hoogerwerf M, Jongamn R, Kitnaes K (2006): Development of an Ecological Network along the Sava. Final Report. Wageningen International, The Netherlands

IUCN European Programme (2005): Best practices for Conservation Planning in RuralAreas: Biological and Landscape Diversity in Central and Eastern Europe. IUCN,Warsaw

IUCN (2010): Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains. Project Results (CD)

Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske (2011): Zašticena podrucaja.http://www.min-kulture.hr/default.aspx?id=232. Accessed on 11 July 2011

Radovic I (ed) (2011): Strategija biološke raznovrsnosti Republike Srbije za periodod 2011. do 2018. godine. Ministarstvo životne sredine i prostornog planiranja,Beograd

The Sava River and its tributaries represent the largest reser-voir of renewable water in the Danube River Basin. Therefore,securing protection and proper management of these waterresources is a strategic priority for Croatia and all other ripa-rian countries. Recent advances in wastewater managementin the Sava River Basin, in particular completing the mechan-ical-biological wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of thecity of Zagreb, have contributed to a significant improvementof the water quality of the Sava River and can be regardedas the key step towards achieving the proclaimed objectivesof the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Introduction

Most of Croatia’s renewable water resources, reachingrespectable 45 billion cubic meters a year, originate from surface waters (39 billion cubic meters a year). A large percentage of available surface water belongs to the SavaRiver Basin. Sava River is the Danube's second longest tributary, being by far the largest in terms of water quantity(average annual discharge of 1209 m3/s). After the break-down of former Yugoslavia in 1991, it has become an impor-tant transboundary watercourse, connecting four ripariancountries: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, andSerbia. The Sava River Basin (95.719 km²) represents about40% of their land area and, more importantly, the source ofmore than 80% of their total available water. The river lengthand drainage area within the Croatian territory are 518 kmand 25.100 km2, respectively, with 2,340,000 inhabitantsrepresenting more than 50% of the total population. More-over, the alluvial aquifer of the Sava River is a rich reservoirof high quality groundwater, which plays an essential role asa source for drinking water supply of riparian cities, includingCroatia’s capital, the city of Zagreb. Therefore, a proper management of these valuable resources is of strategic importance for the national economy, public health, envi-ronmental protection and wetland habitat preservation.

Due to the transboundary character of the surface wa-ters in the Sava River Basin and associated groundwater

reserves, activities concerning environmental protection and regulation of the water regime to mitigate devastating consequences of extreme floods are of high concern for allneighbouring countries. These issues have been gaining importance in the last decade and led to several internationalinitiatives, recognizing the geostrategic and economic importance of the Sava River Basin. As a consequence, several international initiatives have been launched, the mostsignificant one being the Stability Pact Sava River Basin Initiative launched in June 2001 (http://www.seerecon.org/infrastructure/sectors/environment/ri/sava.htm). The Initiativewas followed by the creation of the International Sava RiverBasin Commission (http://www.savacommission.org/index.php?lang=eng) in fall 2002. Moreover, numerous interna-tional projects have been supported by various internationalagencies, including the UNDP Global Environmental Facilityproject, aimed at developing the Sava River Basin Manage-ment Plan, and two major European Union FP6 research pro-jects: SARIB (Sava River Basin: Sustainable Use, Managementand Protection of Resources; http://www.sarib.net/) andEMCO (Reduction of environmental risks, posed by emergingcontaminants, through advanced treatment of municipal andindustrial wastes; http://www.cid.csic.es/emco/). However,despite all these valuable initiatives the expert and institu-tional framework needed for identification, evaluation andcontrol of hazardous chemical contamination in the riverbasin is still not fully developed.

Anthropogenic pressures and impacts

The Sava River is exposed to significant anthropogenicpressure from various sources, including urban areas, indus-try, agriculture and traffic. It flows through some densely pop-ulated and highly industrialized areas and directly affects asmuch as 5.000 km² of fertile agricultural land. The Sava Riveris navigable from Sisak to Belgrade (total 593 km), while theSava Valley represents a natural route for regional land traffic,including railway and highway Ljubljana-Zagreb-Belgrade aswell as regional routes of oil and gas pipelines from Croatiato Serbia. As a consequence, securing the good ecologicalstatus of all ambient waters in the Sava River Basin, as de-fined by the WFD, and complying with the targeted waterquality criteria will require a significant reduction of the con-

Marijan Ahel, Nevenka Mikac, Tvrtko Smital: Division for Marine and Environmental Research, Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Water resources and wastewater management

in the Sava River Basin


The recently completed NATO Science for Peace projecton assessment of hazardous chemical contamination in theSava River Basin (http://www.irb.hr/nato-savariver/) ad-dressed this issue in detail by implementing a state-of-the-art Effects-Directed Analysis (EDA) approach customized forthis basin. The overall goal of the project was a comprehen-sive assessment of the main sources of hazardous chemicalcontamination on the most densely populated and heavily in-dustrialized section of the Sava River Basin between the citiesof Zagreb and Sisak as a key tool for scientifically-based andcost-effective management of water resources. A special em-phasis was on the relationship between wastewater dis-charges of the city of Zagreb and quality of the Sava Riverwater and sediments.

The composition of municipal wastewater of the city ofZagreb is very complex, containing a large number of regu-lated and non-regulated contaminants (Terzic & Ahel 2006).A recent study by Terzic at al. (2008), carried out within theEU FP 6 Project EMCO, reported on a comprehensive recon-naissance of over seventy individual wastewater contami-nants in the region of Western Balkan and showed thewidespread occurrence of emerging contaminants in munici-pal wastewaters of the region. These included some promi-nent classes such as pharmaceuticals and personal careproducts, surfactants and their degradation products, plasti-cizers, pesticides, insect repellents, and flame retardants. Adetailed EDA study of the untreated wastewater of the cityof Zagreb showed that most of the toxic effects, associatedwith specific organic contaminants remained unexplained.Table 1 shows the list of the most prominent representativesof anthropogenic contaminants in the wastewater effluentsand Sava River.

Improvements of water and sediment quality by state-of-the-art wastewater treatment

In the past 25 years, water quality criteria for therecipient ambient waters in Croatia have always beenfairly well-developed and timely harmonized with simi-lar legislation adopted in Western Europe and USA.However, the strict implementation of these criteriawas not sustainable due to the very limited waste-water management. Until recently, only a very smallpercentage of wastewater was biologically treated be-fore discharge (Kaštelan-Macan et al. 2007), whichled to very high loads of the various classes of anthro-pogenic contaminants in the Sava River (Terzic & Ahel2006). For example, it was estimated that the loadsof some common wastewater contaminants, such asmajor classes of synthetic surfactants, from the sewersystem of the city of Zagreb reached approximately 1ton per day in the 1980s. Since January 2008, mixedmunicipal and industrial wastewaters, collected in thewider area of the city of Zagreb, have been subjectedto full, state-of-the-art mechanical and biologicaltreatment, based on conventional activated sludge

taminant inputs, in particular the organic load, and strict im-plementation of the adopted mitigation measures.

An issue of special concern, in this regard, is the man-agement of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Municipalwastewaters are well-known as one of the main sources ofvarious organic and inorganic contaminants into the aquaticenvironment, and their relative contribution to the overall con-taminant loads in ambient waters is especially high in coun-tries in transition such as Croatia. Until recently suchcountries were characterized by poor wastewater manage-ment practices (Kaštelan-Macan et al. 2007). Although sig-nificant improvements have been achieved over the past fewyears, the situation is still far from being satisfactory. As com-pared to the situation in Western Europe, the key environ-mental problem common for all transition countries in theSava and Danube River Basins is the release of contaminateduntreated effluents from municipalities and industrial facilitiesthat are greatly dominated by old and environmentally un-friendly technologies. A comprehensive assessment of pos-sible adverse effects of hazardous chemical contaminationis therefore of great importance.

Assessment of hazardous chemical contamination

Despite continuous efforts to establish an effective mon-itoring in the Sava River Basin to assess hazardous chemicalcontamination, this goal has been only partially achieved. Dueto the limited capacities of analytical laboratories, monitoringactivities are often restricted to a comparatively small numberof possibly hazardous contaminants through targeted analy-sis. As a consequence, the occurrence of potentially toxicsubstances other than priority pollutants at the sites exposedto chemical contamination is frequently overlooked and thepotential hazard posed to the environment and human healthwidely underestimated.

Compound RW SE Sava River

Petroleum hydrocarbons 100-1000 10-100 10-100

Linear alkylbenzenes C10-C14 (LAB) 0.1-1 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 0.01-0.1 0.001-0.01 0.001-0.01

Nonylphenol 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1

Benzophenone 1-10 0.1-1 0.01-0.1

Coprostanol 10-100 1-10 1-10

Galaxolide 1-100 1-10 0.1-1

Diethylhexylphthalate 1-100 1-10 0.1-10

Terbutylazine 0.1-1 0.01-1 0.01-0.1

Metholachlor 1-10 0.1-1 0.01-0.1

Caffeine 10-100 0.1-1 0.01-0.1

Sulfamethoxazole 0.1-1 0.1-1 0.01-0.1

Azithromycin 0.1-10 0.1-10 0.01-1

Benzoylecgonine 0.1-1 0.1-1 0.01-0.1

Linearalkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) >1000 10-100 10-100

Linear alcohol polyethoxylates (LAEO) >1000 10-100 1-100

Table 1. Typical specific organic contaminants identified in wastewater effluents of the city of Zagreb (RW = raw wastewater; SE = secondary effluent) and in the Sava River (concentration ranges in µg/L)


As a consequence of reduced inputs of various contam-inants via treated wastewater discharges, the current longi-tudinal gradients of pollution in the Sava River, as reflectedby different ecotoxic effects, do not indicate anymore the expected conspicuous impact of municipal wastewaters of the city of Zagreb (Table 2). The most important feature of the pollution profiles in the river sediments is prevalenceof the refinery in the city of Sisak as the major source of toxichydrocarbon pollution (Krca et al. 2007).

process. The WWTP currently serves about 650,000 inhab-itants, while the treatment steps include grit removal, primaryclarifier, activated sludge treatment and secondary clarifier.

Under typical operating conditions, this treatment reducesthe organic load of raw wastewater, expressed as chemicaloxygen demand (COD), by more than 90%. The concen-tration of most abundant categories of specific wastewatercontaminants in secondary effluents were also dramaticallyreduced, in particular surfactants and hydrocarbons (Smital

Sample/LocationWater Sediment

Algal Tox EROD Algal Tox EROD

Raw wastewater – Zagreb WWTP 83 32.7 n.a. n.a.

Secondary effluent – Zagreb WWTP 66 10.7 n.a. n.a.

Sava River – 10 km upstream of Zagreb WWTP 16 1.7 15 34

Sava River – 15 km downstream of Zagreb WWTP 20 2.8 28 17

Sava River – 2 km downstream of Sisak 33 1.7 49 93

Confluence of the Una River 30 1.8 54 94

Table 2. Hazard profiles of water and sediment samples collected on the Sava River section, covering wider areas of the cities of Zagreb and Sisak, Croatia, in relation to wastewater effluents of the city of Zagreb as a major point source. The numbers indicate relative bioassay responses in comparison to the maximal response, determined as plateau of the sigmoid dose-response curve, set at 100 %. The threshold value between good/acceptable (low percentages) and bad quality (high percentages) cannot yet be determined. Algal Tox – Algal toxicity determined using freshwater green algae Desmodesmus subspicatus; EROD – CYP1A induction potential determined as EROD activity of 7-ethoxy-resorufin-O-deethylase (EROD)

Figure 1. Removal of metals in the WWTP of the city of Zagreb (based on a study conductedin 2009; Mikac et al. unpublished data)

et al. 2011a). Nevertheless, some categories of emergingcontaminants, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides,showed a rather modest elimination (Terzic et al. 2008; Smital et al. 2011a). As a consequence, compared to the pre-vious situation, the mass loads of some typical contaminantsin the Sava River decreased more than 10 times (Smital etal. 2011b). Regarding organic contaminants, the removal wasmainly associated with the biological transformations duringsecondary treatment.

Metals are also ubiquitous constituents of municipalwastewaters, reaching sometimes rather high levels in un-treated wastewater. This was the reason for occasionally highlevels of some toxic metals in the Sava River (e.g., Pb, 2.3-19.3 µg/L) in the periods before the WWTP of the city of Zagreb became fully operational (Mikac & Branica 1994). Despite the fact that the metals cannot be eliminated viabiodegradation, their removal in the WWTP was very efficientfor those metals, which exhibit a strong adsorption ontosewage sludge (Figure 1), leading to about 10 times reducedemissions into the Sava River for most of the ecotoxic metals(e.g., Pb, 0.98 ± 0.38 µg/L).

ReferencesKaštelan-Macan M, Ahel M, Horvat AJM, Jabucar D, Jovancic P (2007): Water

resources and waste water management in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia andthe State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Water Policy 9, 319–343

Krca S, Zaja R, Calic V, Terzic S, Grubešic MS, Ahel M, Smital T (2007): Hepatic biomarker responses to organic contaminants in feral chub (Leuciscus cephalus) – laboratory characterization and field study in the Sava River, Croatia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26, 2620–2633

Mikac N, Branica M (1994): Input of ionic alkyllead compounds to surface waters.Sci. Tot. Environ. 154, 39–46

Smital T, Terzic S, Loncar J, Senta I, Žaja R, PopovicM, Mikac I, Tollefsen KE, ThomasKV, Ahel M (2011b): Prioritisation of organic contaminants in a river basin usingchemical analyses and bioassays. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., submitted

Smital T, Terzic S, Žaja R, Senta I, Pivcevic B, PopovicM, Mikac I, Tollefsen KE, Thomas KV, Ahel M (2011a): Assessment of toxicological profiles of the municipal wastewater effluents using chemical analyses and bioassays. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 74, 844–851

Terzic S, Ahel M (2006): Organic contaminants in Croatian municipal wastewaters.Arh hig rada toksikol 57, 297–306

Terzic S, Senta I, Ahel M, Gros M, PetrovicM, Barcelo D, Müller J, Knepper T, Martí I, Ventura F, Jovancic P, Jabucar D (2008): Occurrence and fate of emerging wastewater contaminants in Western Balkan Region. Sci. Tot. Environ. 399, 66–77


danube newsdonau aktuellBulletin of the International Association for Danube Research (IAD)

Informationsblatt der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Donauforschung (IAD)

International Association for Danube Research (IAD)

Editor:

Dr. Jürg BloeschStauffacherstrasse 159CH-8004 ZürichTel. 0041 (0)44 241 11 19E-mail: bloesch@eawag

Layout:Diener + Bachmann GmbHWinterthurerstr. 58, 8006 ZürichTel. 0041 (0)44 440 11 50

Printing:VDV Friedrich, A-4020 Linz, Austria

Presidium

Member Country Representatives

Expert Groups

DDr. Fritz

KOHMANN

CHDr. Armin RIST

ADr. Maria

LEICHTFRIED

CZDr. Jan HELESIC

SKDr. Eva

BULANKOVA

HProf. Dr. Arpàd

BERCZIK

HRDr. GoranKLOBUCAR

PresidentDr. Thomas HEIN

Vice-PresidentDr. Ivana TEODOROVIC

SLON.N.

Chemistry/PhysicsDr. CristinaSANDU

Biotic processesDr. Thomas

HEIN

Microbiology / HygienicsDr. Gerhard KAVKA

Phytoplankton /Phytobenthos

Dr. Katrin TEUBNER

MacrophytesProf. Dr. Georg

JANAUER

Floodplain-ecologyDr. UlrichSCHWARZ

ZoobenthosDr. NàndorOERTEL

Fish Biology / FisheryDr. Mirjana LENHARDT

SaprobiologyDr. Gunther

SEITZ

EcotoxicologyDipl.-Biol. Willi

KOPF

Delta / Fore-DeltaDr. JulianNICHERSU

Sustainable Development &Public Participation

Dr. Harald KUTZENBERGER

BiHN.N.

SRBDr. SnezanaRADULOVIC

ROProf. Dr. Marian Trajan

GOMOIU

BGDr. RoumenKALCHEV

MDDr. DumitruDRUMEA

UADr. Artem

LYASHENKO

LIUBLIANA

CH

RMN

MD

Hydrological catchmentof the River Danube

ISSN 2070-1292

Address / General Secretary:

International Association for Danube ResearchInternationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft Donauforschung (IAD)Am Zunderfeld 12, A-4073 Wilhering Tel.: 0043 727478881 Fax: 0043 727478884E-mail: [email protected]

IAD-Homepage: http://www.iad.gs

General SecretaryDr. Harald KUTZENBERGER

danube news - iad · danube news –november 2011 –no. 24 ... trilogy now, no. 24 is featuring...

Documents